Bilingual Bible Blog

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

I originally wrote the following thoughts back in late March 2017, when the movie and book discussed below had just been released. I didn't post it to the blog at that time because emotions about the movie were high (one person on Facebook blocked me when he disagreed with my conclusions in a discussion group for ministers). But now I think the time is right.

There has been lots of discussion and debate the past couple
of weeks concerning the movie The Shack. Some people say the movie (and the novel it is adapted from) changed their
relationship with God. When people who carefully scrutinize the story point out
theological errors in it, fans will say things like, “It’s based on a novel,
it’s not meant to be taken literally,” or “Mack’s encounter in the shack is
just a dream, stop making such a big deal out of it.”

But the book and the movie are definitely pushing a
theological agenda, trying to influence the way we see God and the Bible. When the book first came out almost ten years
ago, several people pointed out undercurrents of themes such as universalism
(the teaching that everyone is saved by Christ’s atoning death on the cross,
whether they willfully repent and accept Jesus as Savior or not). At that time,
Young denied that he was a universalist. But now the picture is much clearer.

The following is an excerpt from the book Lies We Believe About God by William
Paul Young, author of the best-seller The
Shack, which has recently been made into a motion picture that just
released in theaters a week-and-a-half ago. (I don’t have the page numbers in the
book, but I transcribed this from a segment of the audiobook version, which
Young himself reads. The audio excerpt was not just a sound bite of a sentence
or two taken out of context, but the entire passage below, with no
interruptions.)

----------------------

So, what is the good news? What is the gospel? The good news
is not that Jesus has opened up the possibility of salvation, and you have been
invited to receive Jesus into your life. The gospel is that Jesus has already
included you into His life, into His relationship with God the Father, and into
His anointing in the Holy Spirit. The good news is that Jesus did this without
your vote. And whether you believe it or not won’t make it any less or more
true.

What, or who, saves me? Either God did it in Jesus, or, I
save myself. If in any way I participate in the completed act of salvation
accomplished in Jesus, then my part is what actually saves me. Saving faith is
not our faith, but the faith of Jesus. God does not wait for my choice, and
then save me. God has acted decisively and universally for all humankind. Now,
our daily choice is to either grow and participate in that reality, or continue
to live in the blindness of our own independence.

“Are you suggesting that everyone is saved? That you believe
in universal salvation?” That is exactly
what I am saying. This is really good news. It has been blowing people’s minds
for centuries now. So much so, that we often overcomplicate it and get it
wrong. Here’s the truth: every person who has ever been conceived was included
in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. When Jesus was
lifted up, God dragged all human beings to himself (John 12:32). Jesus is the
Savior of all humankind, especially believers (1 Tim. 4:10). Further, every
single human being is in Christ (John 1:3), and Christ is in them, and Christ
is in the Father (John 14:20).

When Christ, the Creator in whom the cosmos was created,
died, we all died. When Christ rose, we rose (2 Cor. 5).

-------------------------

Young’s position here is very unbiblical. Young writes,
“Jesus has already included you into His life, into His relationship with God
the Father, and into His anointing in the Holy Spirit. ... And whether you
believe it or not won’t make it any less or more true.” But the Bible is clear
that one must repent of one’s sins and believe (place their faith and trust) in
Jesus in order to be saved. Jesus began His earthly ministry preaching,
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matt. 4:17), echoing John
the Baptist’s preaching (Matt. 3:2). Young says believing or not believing
doesn’t change things. John 3:18 says, “Whoever believes in him is not
condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they
have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” So whether you
believe in Christ or not does make a difference in your eternal destiny, in
whether Christ’s atoning work on the cross is applied to your life personally.

Young continues: “If in any way I participate in the
completed act of salvation accomplished in Jesus, then my part is what actually
saves me.” This sounds very pious, and is an argument often used by those who
adhere to the teachings of French Reformer John Calvin to point out that we
don’t contribute anything to our salvation, so that God gets all the glory. The
problem is, the Bible is clear that God gives people the choice of whether to
follow Him or not. The Bible is clear that Christ died for all. It is also
clear that not all are saved (see Paul’s anguish in Romans 9 over his fellow
Jews who refuse to believe; also the Jews in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13:45–46,
who Paul and Barnabas say have not considered themselves worthy of eternal
life). So there must be an acceptance on our part to receive what Christ has
done for us. And this acceptance is really nothing more than to cease fighting
against God and give in to His love and grace. It’s not anything we could take
credit for, as if we had taken the first step toward God.

“God does not wait for my choice, and then save me.” It is
true that God did not wait for us to come asking for salvation to take the
necessary steps to provide salvation for us. “While we were still sinners,
Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). But we are still required to repent of our
sins (Acts 2:38), put our faith in Jesus (Acts 16:31), and confess Jesus as
Lord (Romans 10:9–10).

“Here’s the truth: every person who has ever been conceived
was included in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.” While
it is true that Christ paid the price for the sins of every man, woman, boy,
and girl throughout history by His death on the cross, each person is still
responsible to respond to the offer of salvation in order to receive it.

In Exodus 11:1–12:30, when God was sending the final plaque—the
death of the firstborn—on Egypt to get Pharaoh to let Israel go, each family
was to kill a lamb and place the blood on the doorposts of the house. They were
then to remain inside the house to avoid death. The blood of the lamb was
sufficient to save everyone in the family. But any firstborn son, even among
God’s chosen people Israel, who was not inside a house marked with blood, was
subject to death. Similarly, Christ’s atoning sacrifice is sufficient for the
sins of the whole world, but each person must enter into the place of
protection marked by the blood of the Lamb of God—that is, a saving
relationship with Jesus Christ—to receive eternal life.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

I have heard several times over the past few years that the
times we live in are like the times of the early church. Something I read today
confirmed that once again for me.

I recently started reading David A. deSilva’s Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity:
Unlocking New Testament Culture. I have seen it referenced in blogs and in
other books on the cultural background of the Bible, and decided it was time to
read it myself.

The first chapter is about honor and shame in the world of
the New Testament. This passage really jumped out at me:

The law of Moses forbids any kind
of dealings with idolatrous worship, and so the honorable Jew never frequents a
Gentile temple. The rest of the world, however, regards the paying of proper
respect to the gods (namely, the deities depicted by the idols loathed by the
Jews) as an essential characteristic of the honorable person—the pious and just
person who gives the gods their due.... Moreover, strict observance of Torah
means keeping watch over what one eats and, as it came to be applied, with whom
one eats. Between the prohibition of idols (which would be present and honored
even at a private dinner party given by a Greek or Roman) and the dietary and
purity laws of Torah, Jews were severly restricted in their interactions with
non-Jews. The majority culture, however, placed a high value on civic unity and
on participation in the life of the city in all its aspects (e.g., religious
festivals, business guilds and the like), with the result that Jews appeared to
them to keep strictly to themselves and to harbor barbaric suspicions of (or
even hatred of) other races. This became another source of ridicule and insult
directed against Jews, whose very way of life (the Torah) came to be despised
as a body of xenophobic and retrogressive laws (pp. 38–39).

It doesn’t take a PhD to see the parallels between the first
century Greco-Roman world and the twenty-first century in the western world.

Torah-observant Jews refused to participate in—or even be remotely
connected to—pagan temple rites, going so far as to avoid eating in the homes
of Gentiles where there might be household idols (and the meat almost certainly
came from animals sacrificed in the local temple). These faithful Jews were labeled
xenophobic and backwards. They were excluded from trade guilds (which often had
patron gods or goddesses who would be honored at guild meetings), and some
people refused to do business with them because of their lack of participation
in the civil religion of the day. The broader culture tried to shame God’s
people into conforming to its values.

Bible-believing Christians today not only don’t participate
in the sexual activities prohibited by God but widely practiced and accepted in
the wider culture—homosexuality, bisexuality, pre-marital or extramarital
sexual relations, polyamory, transgenderism, etc.—they also refuse to approve
of others’ participation in these activities. For refusing to pay homage to the
god of the age (sexual license and perversion), Christians are labeled
homophobic, out of step with the times, puritanical, and hateful. Some lose
their jobs, such as Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich, who supported California’s
Proposition 8 in 2008 (a measure banning gay marriage in that state that was
later overturned by courts), and was forced from his new CEO position shortly
after his appointment in 2014 due to online outrage from pro-gay groups about
his support for that measure. Others, such as bakers, florists, and
photographers, are threatened with losing their businesses due to lawsuits filed
because they decline to provide their services for a same-sex wedding (which to
these business owners would amount to implying their approval of practices that
go against their Christian morals). The broader culture tries to shame God’s
people into conforming to the culture’s mores. Even if we don’t participate, we’re
expected to look on approvingly.

In the first and second centuries, however, those who held
firm to God’s revelation “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6 KJV).
Churches today that capitulate to the culture (accepting homosexual/lesbian
practices, even among their clergy) are dying, when conventional wisdom would
say that giving the culture what it wants should result in more popularity and
growth. But the opposite is true. It is churches that have the courage of their
convictions that are growing, because they are willing to stand for something,
even at the cost of being looked down on by society.

May all we who call ourselves followers of Jesus Christ be
like Moses, who “chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather
than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin” (Hebrews 11:25, NIV). Let us be
willing to be left “outside the camp,” bearing the disgrace Jesus bore (Hebrews
13:13).

About Me

I have a BS in Computer and Information Sciences from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, with a minor in Mathematics. In 2017, I completed a Master of Arts in Theological Studies with a New Testament concentration at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary in Springfield, MO. My wife Diana (who is a native of México) and I serve on the leadership team for Amistad, the Latino ministry of FirstNLR.